I would like to believe that, but the discussion on this thread thus far is confirming my suspicions that the theory is simply not falsifiable. If I lived a million years, observed every species remain essentially unchanged over that time, this would seem insufficient to falsify the theory. Just because they never changed while I was watching over countless generations, that is no evidence that the process didn’t previously work when I wasn’t watching, just like all the “living fossils” extant don’t disprove the theory.
It is reminiscent of that “super hero” in Mystery Men, that had the power to turn invisible… so long as no one was watching.
The only falsifying criteria that anyone has offered relates to falsifying common descent. And, while interesting, and certainly related, it is not my main question. Disproving common descent may indeed consequentially disprove evolutionary theory, but the converse is not true. Common descent can be true, while macroevolution via natural selection / variation could be untrue. I’m asking if there is any empiric, scientific means by which the standard naturalistic macroevolutionary theory could be disproved as a mechanism in itself, even if common descent were true.
Normally, one would try to repeat the conditions (if possible) to test the theory and demonstrate some level of repeatability, with certain results allowing falsifiability. I personally would be convinced of the process if we could observe organisms with short generation times (bacteria, protozoa, etc.) develop novel structures or functions from significant amounts of new novel code over comparable generations (comparable to the timeframe such novel information is purported to have appeared in other animals). In such a case, I’d say the theory was tested and confirmed,
However, if the process we can observe does not show this ability, even over comparable generations… even in lab settings, with lots of coaxing, or in nature with near limitless opportunities, why should I be asked to believe in the reality of a natural biological process without empiric evidence, a process which it seems is neither observable, repeatable, testable, nor falsifiable?
I’m afraid it seems to me that this particular theory does in fact have infinite elasticity.